Dear George, Martin, Rob, all
Thank you for this very interesting and relevant discussion which
definitely belongs to CRMsoc. I'd kindly ask those who can, to create an
issue in the CRMsoc documentation, with these emails, in order to make
this discussion more accessible. Also, in my opinion, this rich
discussion shows the limits of a mailing list: it would be very useful
to split and regroup the different sub-questions and answers within
different threads (e.g in a forum) and it takes a lot of time to read
and reorder all the points of view — in the own mind or on 'paper'. In
the end, only a few people will have the time and the motivation of
doing this, while the interest of the issue would deserve discussion by
a wider community.
This said, I think three different levels appear and are partly mixed
up: a phenomenal, an epistemological and a technical. And this makes the
issue even more difficult to solve, at least to the extent that these
different levels are not differentiated.
On the phenomenal level the question is: what is the modelled phenomenon
? A personal, time-related quality or skill of the person in charge of
the activity ? or the fact that he/she acts as representative of an
institution, as a more general activity ? or with a specific mission in
this case ? or because he/she is employed by an organization and carries
out that activity within that framework ? It seems difficult to have a
unique way of modelling all these different possible aspects of reality.
Also, the perception of them depends on the point of view of the
observer, as social sciences teach us. Even in natural science,
objectivity is a matter of convention and the model of reality is only
one of the possible representations of it, not yet falsified. This is
even more true for social phenomena, even if one limits oneself to the
level of pure information. Choosing between phases, time-limited
qualities of entities or events to model these social facts is therefore
as much the result of epistemological choices as it is the result of the
comtemplation of the phenomenal reality as such. Definitely an issue for
CRMsoc where the epistemological approach should be wider then the one
in CMRbase. Assuming that the modelled domain is the one of /social/
states of affairs.
And finally there is the techical issue. We try to model this complex
reality, and all these different perspectives, with simple, limited
constructs like (RDFS) classes and properties, then —given the richness
of the phenomena— we are obliged to introduce additional constructs,
such as properties of properties (14.1 etc.), property classes (PC) or
by splitting events in sub-events through partitioning, which are not
really specified in the standard, or at least not in a very visible way
for the community.
During the 12 years of the symogih.org experience
<http://symogih.org/?q=type-of-knowledge-unit-classes-tree> we had long
discussions on this issue (without beeing able to really answer it) :
knowing that a person is involved in an event and has thus a /role/ in
it, are the aforementioned phenomena characteristic of the person, of
the role, or of both in the context of that event ? the answer depends
on the modelled phenomenon and on the point of view of the data producer.
Technically speaking one could express this in (at least) two ways:
1.
<modeling> a Activity ;
label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of Takin> ;
carried_out_by _[actor-with-contextual-quality]*.
_[actor-with-contextual-quality] has_actor <george> ;
has_quality <time related skill>**.
[or]
has_motivation <specific mission for this activity>**.
[or]
has_general_activity <more general activity>**.
* blank node
** the corresponding temporal entities, with own properties or (if
shortcuts and simplifications) the corresponding types
2.
<modeling> a Activity ;
label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of Takin> ;
carried_out_by* <george>.
carried_out_by* with_the_quality** <time related skill>.
[or]
carried_out_by* with_the_motivation** <specific mission for this activity>.
[or]
carried_out_by* in_the_contex_of_general_activity** <more general
activity>.
* as PC or reified property (I do not use here the usual statement
construct for reified properties to keep it readable)
** as property of property
Solution 1. focuses on the quality or mission of the actor but raises
the question of the identity of the blank node, as stated in the
previous discussion on this list. A blank node has not a specific
identity but how are then defined the related properties ?
This approch expresses in a suitable manner the social quality inherent
to the actor, whether perceived or factual, occurring mainly during the
activity. It is therefore nearer to reality or, at least, our discourse
about reality.
Solution 2. emphasizes the importance of the actor's role in the context
of the action, qualifies and clarifies it. It adopts an existing
construct (statement reification) but calls for a clearer definition in
CRM and its model family of the meaning of 'properties of properties'
and their use. And also: in fact the quality or mission does not belong
to the role, but to the actor, so this kind of modelling is somewhat
artificial.
Both solutions seem to work technically but reveal the difficulty of
expressing a complex reality and specific points of view with simple
constructs.
Best wishes
Francesco
---
Dr. habil. Francesco Beretta
Chargé de recherche au CNRS,
Responsable du Pôle histoire numérique,
Laboratoire de recherche historique Rhône-Alpes
LARHRA UMR CNRS 5190,
MSH LSE,
14, Avenue Berthelot
69363 LYON CEDEX 07
+ 33 (0)6 51 84 48 84
Le Pôle histoire numérique
<http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pole-histoire-numerique> du LARHRA
Le projet dataforhistory.org <http://dataforhistory.org/> – Ontology
Management Environment OntoME <http://ontome.dataforhistory.org/>
Le projet symogih.org <http://symogih.org/>– SPARQL endpoint
<http://symogih.org/?q=rdf-publication>
Publications
<https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/search/index/?qa[auth_t][]=Francesco+Beretta&sort=producedDate_tdate+desc>
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Actor carrying out an action at the
Behest of Another
Date : Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:04:09 +0300
De : Martin Doerr <[email protected]>
Pour : George Bruseker <[email protected]>
Copie à : crm-sig <[email protected]>
Dear All,
This may find your interest:
F. Steimann. On the representation of roles in object-oriented and
conceptual modelling.Data& Knowl-edge Engineering35(1): 83–106, 2000.
This is a back ground paper of the current CRMbase approach.
I found these, but have not yet read in detail:
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2205/paper25_ontocom4.pdf
and particularly
https://books.google.gr/books?id=n3cRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&source=bl&ots=_ozargCAze&sig=ACfU3U2aV028Cvm0Ts_64ieVHVcsmfQ51w&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS2Lbf2_zoAhVFlFwKHchzAoIQ6AEwC3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ontology%20of%20delegation%20of%20action&f=false
Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents
Εξώφυλλο
<https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=el&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0>
Raimo Tuomela
<https://www.google.gr/search?hl=el&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Raimo+Tuomela%22>
Oxford University Press, 23 Αυγ 2013 - 320 σελίδες
<https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&hl=el&sitesec=reviews>
0 Κριτικές
<https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&hl=el&sitesec=reviews>
Social ontology, in its broadest sense, is the study of the nature of
social reality, including collective intentions and agency. The starting
point of Tuomela's account of collective intentionality is the
distinction between thinking and acting as a private person ("I-mode")
versus as a "we-thinking" group member ("we-mode"). The we-mode approach
is based on social groups consisting of persons, which may range from
simple task groups consisting of a few persons to corporations and even
to political states. Tuomela extends the we-mode notion to cover groups
controlled by external authority. Thus, for instance, cooperation and
attitude formation are studied in cases where the participants are
governed "from above" as in many corporations. The volume goes on to
present a systematic philosophical theory related to the
collectivism-versus-individualism debate in the social sciences. A weak
version of collectivism (the "we-mode" approach) depends on group-based
collective intentionality. We-mode collective intentionality is not
individualistically reducible and is needed to complement
individualistic accounts in social scientific theorizing. The we-mode
approach is used in the book to account for collective intention and
action, cooperation, group attitudes, and social practices and
institutions, as well as group solidarity. Tuomela establishes the first
complete theory of group reasons (in the sense of members' reasons for
participation in group activities). The book argues in terms of
game-theoretical group-reasoning that the kind of weak collectivism that
the we-mode approach involves is both conceptually and
rational-functionally different from what an individualistic approach
("pro-group I-mode" approach) entails.
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:[email protected]
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
